🚀 go-pugleaf

In article <Bxwz4p.4tq@hsi.com>, wright@hsi.com (Gary Wright) writes:
|> In article <1992Nov17.111656@is.morgan.com> 
|> mpiet@is.morgan.com (Mark Pietrasanta) writes:
|> >How do we IS'ers
|> >maintain our role (or any role) as the business units start to
|> >welcome the new peer philosophy?  Especially if they embrace
|> >Microsoft's solutions, which will mean they can support and
|> >develop with minimal man-hours and without IS?
|> 
|> [...]
|> Now I would tend to agree that traditional IS groups may have
|> trouble with this but certainly the skills required to design,
|> install, support, etc a complex heterogeneous LAN environment 
|> are the same skills required to run a large central computer center.
|> The details change, but the concepts are much the same.
|> 

I agree.  But what happens when the LAN goes away, something like
Windows for Workgroups becomes easily accessable, all college grads
learn it, and the users start saying, 'hey, why is it that IS can never
give us EXACTLY what we want, when we want it, and charge us so much?
Screw them, let's higher some kid (one of them) at entry and get 
everything we want.'

They will only have to rely on IS for the cabling, and the maintenance
of the actual backend data (SyBase, mainframe, whatever).  This means
that IS loses their ability to stay in contact with the business, and
therefore become VERY expendible (more so than today).  In addition, they
lose alot of the unique expertise gained from working in different large
businesses (since they will be the first ones to fall?).

The LANs forced IS to restructure and say 'Okay, the PC's are yours,
but the server, well, that's a big, complicated thing that only we
can deal with.' -- a variation on the mainframe.  Once this type of
client-server goes away (which I contend it will), then the users 
basically control everything except the storing of the data -- they
control the retrieval, manipulation, and distribution, typically IS
assisted functions.

What can we do to avoid or work with this?  Restructure again?  Or 
do you think this is something that is extreme and will never happen?

|> In fact in some ways is harder to administer to the needs of a 
|> distributed PC based environment.  Just think about making reliable
|> backups for all those PCs.

Every week I see an easier and easier way to do LAN backups, whether PC,
Unix, or Novell.  If Windows for Workgroups kicks off, I'm sure there will
be some painless way to do the distributed backups.  And the one 'kid'
will still be able to maintain it.
 
|> What needs to happen is that the IS group must change its structure
|> and the services it offers so that the smaller groups within your
|> organization can rely on you to continue to manage their systems.
|> Why should each of these smaller groups being hiring (or drafting)
|> PC and network experts?  Usually they take what they can get from
|> there existing staff instead of hiring a skilled/trained person.

Okay, we did it once with LANs, what do we do now?  The reason they would
use/hire their own person is that is would sure be alot cheaper to have
one real headcount than to pay for endless manhours within IS.  It's
often very difficult to explain to the users where all these man-hours 
come from.

Very interested in any comments.
Mark Pietrasanta - mpiet@is.morgan.com
* * * * * * * * *

"Great spirits have always encountered violent opposition from
mediocre minds." - Albert Einstein

----------------------------------------------------------------
Disclaimer: These responses are my own and in no way reflect the
            views of my employer.
----------------------------------------------------------------